I asked college students “What is sex for?” . . .
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2024
- In this episode Trent shares a clip of him asking college students the question “What is sex for?” and then discusses how we can better share the Church’s teachings on sexual ethics.
00:00 - Intro
01:03 - Comparing sexual ethics to pro-life
04:58 - Bad news vs good news
07:40 - Ordered vs disordered
09:53 - Asking students what they think
11:10 - My thoughts on what they said
15:19 - What is sex?
17:27 - Sex isn’t special?
20:16 - The porn paradox
22:28 - Just a way to show love?
23:56 - Sex expresses marital love
Back in my promiscuous daze, I remember being with women who said that "it's just sex, no big deal." That was until they found out that I was having sex with other women, then it was more than sex, and kind of a big deal...
They also thought it was a big deal when I told them afterwards that I had an active herpes outbreak. Like, they can't mind their own business.
I heard someone shouting "SEEEEEEXXXXX," and that's why I'm here.
so "seeks"? (rhymes with "beaks")
I've always gone for the Cheating Husband story: If a married man is at work and talks with another woman and they fall in love and eventually agree to have sex, is it moral? *Most* people will agree that even though there is consent, there is love and it doesn't affect them (all of which are used as arguments against our position regarding sexual morality), it is still immoral, so they end up with an inconsistent idea of sexual ethics
The bible called that 'adultery'...
@@colinmatts the immorality is in breaking the wedding vow. Even a voluntary, consensual open marriage is immoral.
@@colinmatts You say that in theoretics but Ive watched marriages be opened and then they end in divorce. The harm being done comes later. Even in theory if you don’t want that harm being done.
@@colinmatts nope, its immoral because you're having sex with a person that you're not married to
@@colinmatts The deception in that case is to God, especially if it was a sacramental marriage and to the community of witnesses
WHY DID SHE NOT TAKE THAT ADVICE 😭😭😭 that would have been so memorable
The challenge is to count how many times he says “sex,” and in so doing you will fail to notice the man in a gorilla costume that walks across the screen behind him.
My kids always say "Mom if you aren't religious than the answer is different". That tells me sex education in public school FAILED. If they aren't impressing on kids the dangers to our health, our emotional stability, our self esteem, our ability to be chaste and faithful in marriage in these classes then they are leaving out what is today most important to many. Pleasure is not a part of sex for many FEMALEs outside of a safe committed relationship. . There in lies the ruse. Full honesty would be more helpful in these sex ed classes!
A lot of people in the public school system never grew up. A lot. They really do believe little more than the conclusions they jumped to as teenagers, and they're now in charge.
@@ironymatt A lot of people who went to religious schools got pregnant while they were still arguably children.
Inform them that if you weren't religious, they wouldn't have been born. Sex is how they came into being! The stork was a lie!!! Etc etc.
Too much procreation (not sex per se but sex for reproduction) leads to overpopulation, a drain on resources, and accelerates the death of the human race. Only fanatical religious imbeciles don't understand this
Your children are in a lot of danger from their public school "teachers"
Sex is to be a participant in Gods creative power...it is sacred... that is why marriage is necessary in order to do that act...
Come on dude...
@@inrisalvatore9520Sex before marriage is immoral.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 prove
@@inrisalvatore9520 It’s biblical. Ephesians 5:5 “For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”; this was written to believers in Christ, as well, meaning that it’s insufficient to believe, you also must live holily.
@@inrisalvatore9520Do you have the Holy Spirit in you?
I am so thankful for your life Trent Horn. All of your talks are beautiful and you have a humility that is not afraid to state the truth. I love you and hope to spend eternity in union with you! You also have helped bring my wife into the church via loving Truth
I'm all in for a Catholic version of Fleccas Talks.
I think Fleccas is Catholic.
I think he might be Christian
@@mrpeter4583 Catholic is christian...maybe you meant protestant?
I would much prefer if Trent didn't turn into a right wing pundit thank you
“Francis isn’t it that bad” -Trent talks
Absolutely fantastic that Dr. Pruss wrote on this too. He gave a lecture at my university and he talked about God, Beauty, and Mathematics. It's like there's nothing he won't write about. Extremely awesome and hopefully you get to meet him someday too (although meet may be a strong word because I just asked him a question during the Q&A, but still).
Hello Mr. Trent, I was introduced to Theology of the Body a couple of months ago and I believe that if explained properly it has most of the answers we need regarding sex.
@@colinmatts ?
@@colinmatts I don’t understand what you mean about “passing on genes,” what questions do you have about that topic which TOB doesn’t address?
@@colinmatts It's presumed by the words "nature" "natural"
@@TheThreatenedSwan Everything that exists is natural. Everything that does not exist is supernatural. The problems arise when the natural claims understanding of the supernatural. That is the beginning of BS.
@@kevinkelly2162 What on earth...? You use those words... I don't think you understand what the words you use mean.
The supernatural, by its very definition of being *something,* contradicts your idea that the supernatural doesn't exist.
What you pose is completely unintelligible, preposterous and self-contradictory.
I think compiling all the pragmatic/secular reasons, like rates of divorce by number of partners before engagement, studies showing the relationship between promiscuity and depression, might also be something good to have up one's sleeve.
During my conversion I think the reason why I didn't have trouble believing the Church's teachings about sex was because I already had looked for studies that explained why casual sex (to the extent people have these days) felt so wrong. Sure it wasn't as easy to follow those teachings as it were to accept they were right, but nothing that prayer and God's grace couldn't help.
My point is that everyone I know ( and they are all atheist) married either their first or second sexual partner and has remained monogamous their whole life. I don’t believe the stats for Christian’s would be any different. Many Christians have this odd view that atheists are atheists because we want more sex with different people. No. Evolution is really clever. When we have sex with someone we bond and we want to spend more and more time with that person.
Personally, I saw many of those stats from the Family Research Institute and such data is likely inherently hard to track. Hence, it is rather easy to attack those statistics.
I prefer instead to theorize worst case scenarios and A/B scenarios. Who would have neurochemistry that is more ideal for marriage assuming these two persons are the same 'persons' with the exception of sex: a person with no previous sexual partners or 1000 sexual partners? Assuming that the 1000-number person were to perform the act mechanically and even without talking to any of their partners, I think we know both intuitively and neurochemistry wise that there is a bonding event.
My journey towards the Catholic Church was Louis Perry’s book “the case against the sexual revolution”. It gave me such an aha-moment. And it made me realise the Catholic Church was right all along.
I recently watched Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen's video entitled: ..This is not what God intended Re: Youth & Sex...i would like to suggest to all to watch. Very enlightening for us "human beings". Thank you for all your explanations Trent Horn.
15:05 I mean, one could argue that ingesting Taco Bell is a digestive crime.
Ha ha. Seriously though it can’t be. Ordinarily the criminal intent is not there. Maybe negligence
We could push even further with the question of "What is sex?" to "Legally, what is sex?"
If we cannot define sex formally, then we cannot regulate this activity, and that is not what everyone wants. Sex is very important, it should be governed in some way, or else someone might be hurt deeply.
It's generally assumed to be genital contact and penetration.
@@Nimish204 Does that mean people that have the same sex cannot have sex with each other? If there's a way to qualify them to "have sex", I think we would also qualify one person to have sex with him/herself.
There was a case in the news a few years back in which an assaulter could possibly have gone free because oral sex was not legally recognized as sexual assault in that particular state. The law had listed multiple other acts but not oral. The press raised a lot of attention to that legal loophole and I think it's been updated, but it's awful that it took someone being assaulted for higher ups to notice.
If someone asks you to explain baseball with no background at all, you don't start with the infield fly rule. You first need to establish many other more foundational things before a person could even understand it. Sexual ethics is the infield fly rule of Catholicism.
If you get a question along these lines the first step is to pause and figure out which necessary foundational position they disagree with. If sexual morality is relative and does not exist then natural law does not exist which means objective morality or goodness does not exist which means God does not exist which means you do not exist. Where do they first start disagreeing? That is where you need to start
Marcus Aurelius said that there's no sense in trying to keep someone from pursuing what they believe to be good. They think it's good, and their natural instincts for the pursuit of the good are too strong to fight against. The problem is that what they believe to be good isn't good. If you don't take the trouble to help them understand what the good truly is, you'll end up wasting your efforts.
Most catholics I know in their 20s, they are in long-term relationships, they use contraception, lots of times with a vision/plan of having children and getting married ‘just not right now’. Sometimes that vision is fulfilled but much more common is they have 1-5 relationships like this before they find the one they end up marrying. They practice sexual ethics that is waaay better than what you see in media or than ‘hook-up culture’. I hope you get to address this group in your book!
It's literally Matt Walsh's "What is a woman" question.
Matt should do a “What is a marriage?” next lol.
Actually, What is a woman is a question regarding ontology. What is something? This is a question regarding teleology. What is its purpose?
@@topper009 Yes. My point was more about how they can't answer either though, and how that's essentially what we need to expose. Their ideology has little explanatory power.
It's their entire worldview of relativism: it completely undermines the ability to be able to communicate verbally with agreed upon definitions that explain objective reality. In fact, at its base, it's a denial of objective reality and the ability of man to be able to have any knowledge at all.
again brillant. i am a big proponent of the theology of the body. you gave me a complete of good insights
"Consent is a necessary condition for moral sexuality, but it's not sufficient"
Why? Who the fuck are you to tell consenting adults that they can't have sex?
Good discussion.
You can use something designed for a primary purpose in pursuit of a secondary function.
The dividing line is morality.
I ask this question all the time. I ask people what is the primary purpose of sex. It is a reason why sex organs are called REPRODUCTIVE ORGANA.
People only concentrate on pleasure. However, that is not the primary purpose. The sex organs will always perform their function regardless of the person’s reason why they have sex.
Shifting our focus on the primary purpose of sex can reduce a lot of immorality like abortion.
Not allowing abortion will make people behave in a more moral way.
so under that logic once your ovary's die, thats it????? seriously???v After menopause its done??? Ugh thank god i never married someone like you.
Indeed the purpose is for procreation and bonding (because that is ideal to build for a family), and pleasure is to facilitate this. Pleasure itself is not the end, although many get addicted to it or build up an emotional reliance or habit to it. This is disordered however, which can be seen in the escalation of content people with sex/porn addiction develop, and because it never truly satisfies if not in the proper context.
@@josephmoya5098
It can help reduce abortion. Still, knowing the primary purpose of sex is more effective.
People today believe they are not trying to create a new life because they don't use sex for that purpose. We can't ignore biology. Knowing the primary purpose can help people behave better because they will truly know and accept the consequence of their actions.
Adding laws to restrict abortion will have people finding illegal ways to get one. It can deter people, but a lot of them will still do it illegally.
@@MidnightIsolde
Exactly, pleasure is stimulation that is supposed to motivate you to perform the primary purpose. Focusing on pleasure leads to addiction and negative consequences.
I have not watched the video yet but ai'm guessing to hear a lot of "FUN!!!!"
Suprised I didn't hear that once.
You're looking much slimmer Trent... well done! Hope you're still enjoying Jiu Jitsu
Catholic apologist wins by triangle choke!!!!
When are you going to debate the Dimonds on Vatican II or Salvation for Non-Catholics?
That expression where consent is the necessary condition, but it is not of itself a sufficient enough condition, is such an important point, and it's a point that is so utterly lost on this culture that is so obsessed with spurious ideological arguments like "body autonomy."
it tells a lot about modern christians if the concept of autonomy being the most important is offesive to them
I think a lot of the ambivalence around discussing this in secular circles (and in many religious ones now) is the general fear of offense. We might instinctively *know* that’s not what a specific body part is for, but because there exists those with a proclivity to use it in the wrong way, we err on the side of “tolerance” by pretending we actually think sex is an open-ended act, so to speak. Most subjectivist arguments are rooted in fear of offense.
Not wishing to cause offence or beat about the bush either, no pun intended, but why did your god put the toilet in the middle of the playground?
@@kevinkelly2162 Can't even entertain that as a question, but more as a rhetorical jab.
The way our bodies are shaped, it makes the most sense that our body is created in this particular way. "Why" that is the case is a non-question. It is the way it is because God intended it so and created us, human beings, in his image. That is more than sufficient reason to answer the non-question of why God "put the toilet in the middle of the playground".
The implication seems to be that there can be a mix-up or confusion because of the way our bodies are created, but that is just a ridiculous perspective of one who clearly isn't heeding God's Will.
@@kevinkelly2162 Horrible analogy. Just because there are, near some playgrounds, port-a-potties on the perimeter, does not mean that children should therefore play in the port-a-potties.
@@csongorarpad4670 So explain hermaphrodism for me.
@@kevinkelly2162 It's a rare disease. Diseases are not a mean to discern the natural order of a body or structure, they are abnormalities that are a result of a mistake.
I doubt there exist human hermaphrodites that do not need any care or treatment to attend to the error in development that is causing that disease to them.
Can you give us more info on how to talk to protestants about why contraception is wrong? I just get lots of crazy looks when I attempt that argument.
Maybe if you compared it to beliefs we already agreed on, like same sex "marriages". Why is it not allowed? Because it's not in God's design. No matter what they do, they cannot reproduce which is an essential purpose of sex. By sterilizing yourself, you make yourself no different than a same sex couple that cannot reproduce. Another approach that you can also use for non religious people is this: We look at the purpose of things to decide what is good for it. It is not good for a table to be used as a chopping block or a knife to be used as a hammer because they have an intended purpose and when used outside that purpose, it is destroyed. It applies to EVERYTHING, think of any example, so why would it change for humans and sex? We all agree it is not okay to eat and throw up our food or to sleep all day. Our bodies are used in balanced, specific ways to make sure we protect their health, integrity, and holiness, and when we don't the effects are obvious. Look at all the recent studies that have come out showing the harm in Contraception, the hormonal effects it has on fetuses, the weight gain, the fact it can literally make you disgusted by your own husband once you go on/come off of it (because of the hormones). That's not to mention the divorce rate and promiscuity that arose when it became widely available or that it makes it impossible for you (and your spouse) to become familiar with your body and its cycle, which is super empowering and enlightening. God only wants what is good for us and forbids what hurts us, and Contraception falls right into that category. Hope it helps :)
@@jpc9923 As a Protestant I think you need to read more on our views because the vast majority of Protestant churches are against divorce unless an affair or abuse occurred. The only major exception would be an off shot of the Episcopal church that is incredibly political liberal, and possibly the Methodist church in the next year but both have split or are about to split and have declining membership to the point that they are almost fringe. The majority of evangelical leaning Protestant churches which are popular here in the US hold divorce as a sin but only do allow remarriage after counseling from the pastor and only at the pastors discretion.
As for contraception it’s rarely talked about or addressed in most doctrine. Most would say it falls into the Romans 14 category of if your faith allows it then good but don’t judge others for their decisions. That’s why it’s common evangelicals to have large families. As for the original poster I would focus on convincing Protestants that it is in fact a sin like adultery and not a choice like whether to drink alcohol or not.
@@jpc9923 thanks for the response and clarification. General views differ dependent on the situation ie. what if the previous divorce was before they were Christians again it’s all at the marrying pastors and local churches discretion. And again all major churches view it as sinful. With the proof text for the adultery exception coming from the sermon on the mount.
I’m confused on what you mean by forever love as well, if you get the chance can you please elaborate.
Martin Luther and John Calvin were strongly against it.
Yet they’re still against it? That’s funny
Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae, he reaffiremed the church traditional teachings on God's plan for married love and the transmission of life. It predicted what would happen if people commonly accepted artificial birth control in society.
When you disable primary function, all secondary functions become primary. The central structure and logos has become fractured, because it's like breaking a gem with many facets into all its seperate faces and taking them to do as you will.
It does seem to me that many of the women in that interview seem blissfully naive as to how the opposite sex views sex.
Which is why women should guard their virtue and pursue chastity. Haha, we men sure got them with feminism though….
What is the primary purpose of eating? Intaking nutrition or pleasure. I think it shouldn't be controversial to say that the primary purpose of eating is to keep an organism alive, but there is nothing wrong with making delicious food while also agreeing that over-eating isn't good for an organism even if it might be pleasurable in the moment. Eating is not for whatever you want it to be.
Hey, what do you think about using artificial sweeteners which are non-caloric in food. That also seems to be the same issue as contraception. You want the sweetness without the calories. The reason why sweetness is experienced the way it is, is because of the specific quickly absorbable calories, much like the reason why sex is pleasurable, is because it leads to procreation. I don't hear Catholics ever considering the use of artificial sweeteners to be sinful, much less grave matter, even though it seems to be the exact same issue.
I'd say that the difference between an artificial sweetener and contraception is more that in the case of the sweetener,you aren't blocking the actual intake of calories in order to get the sweetness, but rather just eating something that doesn't have calories so to speak. There are plenty of things that we eat that don't have calories, since calories come from a combination of the presence of sugars, fats, and proteins. But there are foods that have other types of nutrients besides calories.
That being said, I think that there is some level of disorder in the more general way we arrange our food preferences as a result. An emphasis on food on being for pleasure rather than nutrition in practice implies a set of choices which over-all produces a poor diet. It's kinda like using NFP just because you don't want kids and want to be DINKs instead.
@@maryangelica5319 Thank you Mary. There is a subtle difference, you are right. But still you are fooling your brain to think you are consuming energy.
I am asking these questions because I am evaluating whether to have my confirmation. I am attending mass frequently and trying to keep the commandments layed out in the cathecism. I need to discern though still. I am not convinced by the logic behind nfp and contraception. However the evil of contraception was infailably taught as far as I understand. So either it is true or infallibility is wrong. Getting confirmed is like getting married to the church in a way. You don't want to be fooled. But if I stay unconfirmed what am I doing in the church anyway? It's like not getting married and endlessly dating. The truth is the most important thing for me.
So please pray for me 😊
I'm still watching this and wow....
Ikr wow...
Wouldnt a good sexual ethic also be a boon to the pro-life movement?
I’m totally gonna do what that priest said to do when I have my own kids
I'm a big fan of Trent but I'm so unsatisfied with this response, I think he didnt play devil's advocate hard enough on this issue, I can easily put myself in the position of the non-believer and put forward a much stronger case.
For example, by emphasizing that during a hookup both people are willingly giving up the bonding and reproductive part at least to a great extent most of the time
The virgin Theology of the Body vs the Chad Augustinian sexual ethics
does it include which sex positions are moral? Yes, good old tommy had ideas about it as well.
@@Mish844 there are no moral sex positions
@@dionysiuscarthusianus3015 putting aside that your own idol disagrees, read your comment again, but slowly
Both are good. I suggest to give Theology of the Body more credit.
Fornication is wrong for a lot of reasons, but MOSTLY because God said so
Which is why God said no. It's not like God makes up arbitrary rules just for fun, there is a reason for why they exist, even if we don't fully understand them. But that's what Christian apologetics are for I suppose.
Amen
Please Pray the Rosary & Devine Mercy Chaplet to free all countries from war, hunger, calamities, corruption, abortion, divorce, drugs, pornography, homosexuality, slavery, communism and all evils.pls. pray for peace and joy on all families and homes... HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE THE LORD IS WITH YOU. BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB JESUS. HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD PRAY FOR US SINNERS NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH. AMEN.
.....
22:52 one person cannot form a circle. you need at least three.
I guess one question is how do we go from the fact that intentionally subverting the purpose of an organ (for instance how contraception supplants the reproductive organs’ proper function, or even intentionally eating food that has no nutritional value) to the moral culpability that might lead one to damnation if they don’t repent? Maybe it’s hard to understand because to some people, the corporeal act of sex is trivial to our spiritual relationship with God, perhaps they don’t think what we do to our bodies here matters when we won’t have them in heaven (or hell) when we die.
well yeah i'd really like to hear why it's the case that, if something was creating for a particular purpose, using it for any other goal is immoral
Perhaps the argument would enter discussion for why we consider things immoral. I think most people think murder, theft, and sexual assault are wrong simply because it harms other people, as if the standard for morality is whether something causes harm. By this standard, it is hard to argue contraception like condoms are immoral because they don’t seem to harm anyone, though we could attempt to say it does bring about harm, even if it isn’t immediate, like how it degrades a relationship.
But perhaps we can also argue that morality of murder, theft, and sexual assault lies fundamentally not upon the harm but upon natural (and divine) law, though we can say harm is evidence for and a consequence of the law breaking. Murder is wrong because it’s contrary to the nature of a man to end another man’s life before their natural death, and the prerogative over life and death is God’s.
@@warptens5652 The answer is because of who created it - God. Going against His goal is the same as going against His will. In contrast, using any sort of human invention for a different purpose is not even in the realm of a moral or immoral act. There is no "natural" end for a created object. MacGyver did nothing wrong using paper clips to capture bad guys.
@@topper009 ok, thanks
follow up question, imagine the following:
- god creates unicellular organisms
- he lets evolution by natural selection work, doesn't guide it
- in this scenario, the reason why we have a feature is not because it was designed by god, but because it's the result of series a random mutations in individuals that gave them an evolutionary advantage. For example, our light detectors (eyes) allow us to detect light, which makes it look like it's their purpose, but they don't actually have a purpose because they weren't designed by an agent.
Then, would it be ok to go against the apparent purpose of our body? To use the reproduction organs for other things than reproduction?
@@warptens5652 If God creates the unicellular organism He already baked in certain parameters or limitations that it could develop. God is all knowing, he cannot be surprised about how something may develop, He already designed it to work in a certain way. It may seem way to complicated for to see every instance of natural selection an organism and all of its offspring will encounter but the information is immediately present to God as easily as you can see your hand right in front of you.
We also know from scripture that everything God created was "good". This does not just mean He did a "good" job or didn't screw anything up. It doesn't mean He proved himself to be the best creator who made the most awesome stuff. Goodness is a moral fact, so we can see God's created order was created to be moral, not just randomly amoral. So if we go against God's plan for the designed nature of something we are going against goodness, which is the definition of immorality.
Hey Trent, thanks for the video. I wanted to reach out to see what your response would be to this question. It is held by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that Joseph and Mary were married without consumption and Joseph was able to be a parent through adoption (CCC532). Why would one exclude same sex couples from marriage since the one of the goods of marriage (offspring) can be fulfilled through adoption just as much as having a child through sexual relations? This wouldn't justify sexual relations during marriage but it would allow same sex couples to be married and adopt. It would also allow sexual relations in marriage to be considered a venial sin and not a mortal sin correct?
Thank you for your comment. You raise a good question, and although I'm not as articulate as Trent Horn, I'll try to give a response.
It seems that for others, they think that having the capacity to adopt a child is sufficient reason to justify their moral behavior or their understanding of marriage, and thet may think that this is an argument against natural law.
However, I don't think that this is consistent because we don't say that marriage is between two people who can have a child in whatever means that is possible. The capacity to adopt is not what defines marriage, and it's not what justifies a sexual act. Adoption is helpful for children, of course, and we hope that they'll be adopted by good parents. Perhaps, to explain this point more, I'll cite some examples.
A person who has relationship with more than one person, even if all of these relationships have consent, is morally wrong, and this is something that even pro same sex marriage will say to be wrong. But, this type of polyamorous relationship can still adopt children. It's not logically impossible for one to adopt a child and raise them in this morally problematic situation. And yet, it's clear that their capacity to adopt is not the indication that being married with more than one spouse is morally good. At the same time, it's important to make the argument from natural law clearer.
A marriage is an institution between man and woman who has, by nature of their sexuality, the potential to conceive a child. The sexual act between man and woman is naturally ordered towards procreation. This doesn't mean that it will always procreate, but in an ideal situation, in the absence of some biological factors like old age and others, the natural function of the sexual act between them is to procreate. Mary and St. Joseph had this "potential", and of course, this potential is not actualized because God has other plans for them.
On the contrary, same sex couple cannot be married, or should I say,. impossible to be married by definition, because they do not have the potential to conceive a child by their sexual act (I don't need to name the sexual acts that same sex couple can do but this is self evident). As such, it's not really about whether they can adopt or not, but it's because they cannot satisfy the definition of marriage and their sexual act would unnatural or disordered (that is, not ordered towards the end of marriage and sexuality).
With regards to polyamorous relationship, it's wrong because naturally, it only takes two people (man and woman) to conceive a child, not three or more. And, having more than one spouse is contrary to the "unitive" aspect of marriage.
I hope that my explanation is clear.
Thank you.
Tear them down to build them up.
I always find the idea of sex while pregnant weird if for no other reason than not sure I want to subject the baby to that
Nothing happens to the baby
At most, the baby feels the rhythm, the same as if the mother dances, swings on a swing, or rides in a bumpy vehicle. It doesn't harm the baby.
This comment brings me back to a joke I heard back in middle school.
The endorphins that the infant shares with its mother are beneficial to the infant.
@@iamjustsaying4787 true! Lots of good sex, exercise, and other calming/enjoyable activities are really good for baby and mama!
Sex is our assistance in creation. Like a mother allows her kids to help making a cake (adding ingredients, stirring the mixture etc.), but the mother actually bakes it. God allows us to help, but we don't create ... God does. Everyone is a Child of God, including the unborn.
Pro-aborts won't be able to explain adequately to God when they die.
Hers my question: if every sexual act must be open to the possibility of children where she’s that our me and my spouse? She is medically incapable of conceiving and bearing a child. Does that make our sex life morally disordered?
Sure does. In fact any married couple must in fact test for existing pregnancy before engaging in any sexual acts.
If already pregnant, sex becomes simply an immoral act of lust. We have this technology and knowledge now, so there is no excuse. Sex which cannot result in a pregnancy is sin!
Kidding of course. We have sex because it's enjoyable. Procreation is an occasional side effect.
If you implicitly accept that there is a "natural" function to sex, which doesn't necessarily mean it is directly related to sexual procreation, it seems you will want an answer that is consistent across time. The answers about love and things like consent are definitely not consistent across time. In fact most sex historically even between what would be considered "loving couples" was really pushed on the woman, not that it would be viewed much differently from other necessary work. For people who are very sensitive to conform to the latest ideology invented 5 minutes ago, it pains them to look at anything honestly because it will contradict their view
We have a Pope who is complaining about demographic winter in Europe. I will let everyone in on a secret here: we need sexual activity in order to remedy matters.
However the Catholic Church currently considers that it is OK for a social club to exclude women from membership. This makes it impossible for single Catholics to meet the opposite sex. I would suggest that the Pope’s real beliefs about human sexuality are anybody’s guess.
My own real beliefs can be found near the start of the Book of Genesis. I declare an interest.
I think that if a Catholic social club practises racial, sexual or social discrimination, then all its members should be excommunicated. The pro-heterosexual faction of the Catholic Church may be tiny at the moment, and was not represented at either of the recent Synods on the Family, but we do have geometric progression on our side. Our critics will simply become extinct.
10:50 you can see it from her body language. Her eyes 👁️👀👁️👁️👀
Sexual pleasure bonds a couple baiting them into doing something which is seemingly against their own best interests, produce dependent offspring.
Against their best interests?
@@TheThreatenedSwan He's being facetious.
LOL!
@@TheThreatenedSwan Seemingly against their best interests probably referring to unnecessarily giving up your resources.
This is almost certainly true and gives a totally reasonable evolutionary explanation for why sexual stimulation is gratifying.
...what's even better is I can deploy my analytical abilities, afforded to me by the evolution of my pre-frontal cortex, to devise a situation where I get the same pleasure while massively reducing the odds of the production of dependent offspring or, put in more basic language, a "win-win"! 😆
misery, distress
Not Jeffrey Tubin! XD
Nobody likes a good self-gift more than Jeffrey Toobin.
Have to comment again, back in my Evangelical daze I one asked my pastor if masturbation was a sin, he said no, depending on what I was thinking about...what in the Sam Elliott did he think that I was thinking about??? Better still, had a friend in a Protestant church who told me to try thinking of my future wife when masturbating. That is absurdly impossible, but let's say that it is possible. Now I'm conjuring up an image of my future wife to use her as an object to gratify my lusts, great way to prepare for marriage! 😱
Sex Fort? I thought they closed that place down.
Shia Lebouf.
I agree with the Catholic Churches teaching but I think it's focus on natural theology is the wrong approach.
The reproduction focus is only because of the issues of contraception.
Sex is when "two people become one flesh" hence "to know" each other.
Sex has the blessing of being "fruitful and multiply", by defining sex just by the ends (reproduction) makes sex as a means to an end.
Sexual ethics have to be defended from a biblical worldview not just natural law, there are benefits to monogamy but that is not why Christians practice it.
You're correct, the Church also holds that sex isn't just for reproduction, it's also meant to be unitive as well.
I think you misunderstand the concept of natural law. Natural Law refers primarily to how a nature is meant to be and how it is meant to act. God created human nature, and so that which is natural to man falls under natural law, how man is meant to be and act. Man is called to a supernatural end, meaning an end beyond that which his nature can attain. All things regarding this fall into what one might call the supernatural law.
Since sex is a natural part of man, it belongs to natural law. Now, how we understand natural law comes from a reasoned stance on the nature of man and his actions, as well as divine revelations regarding man's nature, like in the bible.
@@jpc9923 "The ethic is based on sex as the sign of the marriage vows"
This incidentally why Protestants believe Mary was not a perpetual virgin.
"as long as you don't take the promise on the altar and do the opposite"
How is it worded in Catholic weddings?
@@josephmoya5098 "as well as divine revelations regarding man's nature, like in the bible."
"Man is called to a supernatural end, meaning an end beyond that which his nature can attain."
I understood divine revelation to reveal supernatural ends, if everything about man's nature or human nature falls under natural law then it should be discoverable without divine revelation.
@@yajunyuan7665 I would argue that traditionally, everything that belongs to nature alone is discoverable, though, as Aquinas states, it will only be done so with great strife over a long time with many errors. Divine Revelation acts as a shortcut to understanding man, and his natural orientation to love God.
So in relation to the bible, there is no reason to try and reinvent the wheel when God has handed it to you on a silver platter. Thought developing it with the light of reason may prove helpful to those who lack faith.
Sex is overrated. Pop culture hypes it up so much that teens are often pressured to have sex and if they don't have sex they'll worry that their friends or people at school would find out and think something is wrong with them. I had a girl ask me that once when I told her that I didn't have sex until college. For a split second I felt ashamed before defending my position.
I'd really like to hear why it's the case that, if something was created for a particular purpose, using it for any other goal is immoral.
Because the teleology of everything was created in such a way by God, which necessarily means that it is in accordance with his will. To violate the teleology of something is to also violate the will of God which, by definition, is an offence to God and cuts you off from him, because in sinning you reject God and that leads you to hell.
@@csongorarpad4670 If it was the case that humans were not created by god but by some supernatural being (like an angel?), who's not morally perfect, and who used its own free will to design us, then, would it be bad to use our bodies in a way that doesn't allign with what this angel had in mind?
And, same question, but replace the angel with unguided evolution by natural selection. Evolution doesn't have goals, so it would be ok to go against the apparent purpose of our bodies?
ruclips.net/video/rynlfggqAcU/видео.html
@@warptens5652 >Evolution doesn't have goals
That is unproven. The overwhelming majority of christians especially scholars see evolution as a tool used by God to shape the biosphere, us included. It's not the real agent, just like a gun is not the agent of a murder, the man that pulls the trigger is.
Christians don't have any issue saying that without God, morality ends up unsubstantiated, asking an hypothethical like "but what if there was no God" is not sensible because it would be like asking a mathemathician "but what if triangles had four sides". What I say does not need to make sense if we act under a false assumption, since God exists it is then moral to use our bodies how they were given to us and not abuse them.
We're given empathy to understand others' emotion, using it to make others more miserable is an abuse because empathy's goal is to incentivize caring for eachother effectively. We're given predatory instincts and features like front facing eyes to kill game not to kill eachother, that is an abuse. So on and so forth, the point is that the notion of abuse = bad is a strong criterion on morality, you can discern basically always with precision if something is moral or not by seeing if there's an abuse of a human faculty, it lines up really well with the intuition shared by people and that alone makes it credible, however to prove it and complete you do need God's revelation.
You don't seem to understand metaphysics. God is supernatural because he transcends nature, while angels are parallel to it. And since creation is something that necessarily requires a supernatural Being, its "if" is absurd. As for Darwinism, it is now quite contested in the scientific community, including by evolutionists, who prefer to adopt other theories, and the reason for this is that Darwinism can't sustain itself cientifically.
casual sex is primarily about attaining the envy of others
I had to laugh at breath crimes and digestion crime
I took Sexual Ethics with one brutally honest Benedictine monk, and he would say the real sexual ethics, nothing mushy and watered down. Well, he was happy to inject attention-grabbers. When he transitioned chapters, he said, “Now we move to our next chapter in the life of sex.”
So if something fulfills secondary functions it is by default disordered, unless it also fulfills the primary function at the same time. The smelling a flower example. So eating for communal reasons and not nutrient reasons would be disordered eating. How then does communion play into that? Unless through transubstantiation, which I don't believe in but for argument sake, body and blood has nutrient value, or even just the actual bread and wine, minimal nutrient value, it would be actually disordered.
No, that isn't what he said, or what the Catholic Church teaches. Only if you are deliberately preventing the primary function does the act become disordered. You can eat for communal reasons, even if you aren't pursuing nutrition, but you can't vomit up the food later to *prevent* the nutrition. You can smell a flower without needing to take a breath, but it isn't even possible to smell a flower without taking oxygen into your bloodstream (barring rather contrived circumstances, like a flower in a room filled with nitrogen).
@@user-sf8mn9ed3d Ok, interesting. Where then does bonding and pleasure with sex fall in those categories? More like communal eating or eating just to throw it up?
@@nategraham6946 Communal eating, presuming the possibility of procreation is not either a) impossible because of the type of sex act or b) impossible due to deliberate action on the part of the couple intended to cause the act to be infertile.
@@user-sf8mn9ed3d So would it be intrinsically disordered to have sex for pleasure and/or bonding unless the procreative aspect is not in play?
@@user-sf8mn9ed3d Correct me if I'm wrong. It seems like that would be leaning more towards the eating and throwing it up side.
I suppose, as ostensibly the sort of person that Trent is trying to reach with this approach, I should offer my answer to the question.
Firstly, I would say that 'purpose' is a projection made my agents onto the world; not an abstract entity existent independent of minds.
Therefore, the purpose of any given sex act is given by the consenting participants, and they don't always line up, and they are liable to change fluidly.
One such purpose is, of course, sexual reproduction; the facilitation of which resulted in the evolutionary process that bestowed us with the physical equipment and mental circuitry tied to sex.
Additionally, and crucially, the state of nature is entirely irrelevant in discussions of 'better' or 'worse'. Phrased another way, the fact that X is 'natural' tells me precisely nothing about the moral character of X.
Thus, the will of the consenting, sexually active people can supercede whatever evolved mechanisms there might be. If they want to exploit the reward circuits in the brain and how they are tied to physical stimulation, that is as acceptable as people deciding they want to have a child together.
Sex doesn't have no meaning, it has a plurality of wonderful meanings; a true buffet of purposes that humanity has become ever better and picking what we want from.
Only the designer or creator of something can determine what it's purpose is, not the user or consumer. The user could use it for a different purpose, but that does not change the reality of the intended purpose of the thing.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding how the word nature is being used here. It is referring to teleology not biology.
@@topper009 as should be obvious, I'm highly skeptical of teleology in general; and I also don't think in this case there is a 'creator' per se (unless one wants to credit evolution through mutation and natural selection as a 'creator').
Finally, even if I were to grant that there was some single 'designed' purpose inherent to an object and not projected onto it by a mind, why should me using it for different purpose be evil? If I use a shoe as a doorstop or the back end of a hammer as a flat-head screwdriver, I haven't done something immoral, I've done something ingenious.
@@EspadaKing777 Immoral things can be ingenious. Releasing chloringe gas in the trenches was ingenious. The definition of immoral is separation from God, who is good Himself, abusing something He gifted to you is indeed immoral. It's not the same with man-designed objects because separating yourself from the intention of the designer does not in the vast majority of cases distance you from God. God explicitly tells us what actions most decisively distance ourselves from His design, because even though we have been gifted a conscience, we learn to dismiss it all too early for the wrong reasons, so He outright tells us what is good and what is bad in some important areas.
Evolution is a tool used by God.
>Sex doesn't have no meaning
You can't even define the word?
Lastly, I don't know what you would define as "moral" if you don't believe in God, but it would be relatively easy to prove it is UNWISE to abuse your own instincts through contraception or some other mean. Living for pleasure is not a wise thing to do, we both agree heroin and meth probably feel amazing but crackheads are failures to society and to themselves. That's because you need to accept the pleasures that channel you towards a wholesome and fulfilling future or habit, and if you look at the divorce rates, at the mental health of childless elderly people, or at many other consequences of hookup culture you will clearly see anyone in their right mind would much profer to spend their time and effort towards chasing more productive pleasure, like the satisfaction of being a parent, or of helping a client, or of worshipping God.
@@tafazzi-on-discord So the first paragraph of this answer would first have to have us agree on the existence of God. Seeing as that is unlikely to happen in a youtube comments section, as an objection it doesn't really have any weight, though it does lend weight to another comment I left where I suggest that you have to lay that metaphysical groundwork with someone before you are likely to ever have success persuading them of Catholic sexual ethics.
If I gift you something, that means I've given it to you and it is now yours. If I say "oh here is this gift, but you better only use it in X ways", that would seem weird and controlling. If I give you a book as a present, and then all it does is sit on your shelf and gather dust, or exist under your table to prop up the wobbly leg; I won't think you're morally reprehensible for doing so.
I used the word "sex" here to refer to the cluster of acts of sexual intimacy including, but not limited to, intercourse. There are a variety of acts that could take on sexual characteristics in the correct context. Language and reference can be a little more nuanced than people seem to think, which is why there is a field of study dedicated to it.
So I can agree that certain behaviors take to extremes can definitely cause harm to oneself and others, but the key part of that is "taken to extremes". If one contracepts in the context of a long-term, loving relationship that has endured for decades, then it isn't clear that it is doing harm to either person. I've known of a gay couple who have been in a strictly monogamous relationship for over 40 years and I've had friends in healthy and functional polyamorous relationships. It just is simply not the case that heterosexual monogamy is the only meaningful, healthy way to have a relationship.
High divorce rates are not necessarily a sign that something is wrong. I would actually counter and say that it indicates people have more freedom to leave relationships that have become toxic or dysfunctional rather than being trapped by archaic social convention.
The mental health of childless elderly people is down to loneliness, and children are certainly one potential solution, but by no means the only one. Again, you've identified a problem, but it doesn't provide the weight you think it does to your argument.
"consequence of hookup culture" is vague and unhelpful, and we have to be careful in sociology about drawing causal relationships from merely correlated things. I think a lot of the issues from hookup culture can be attributed to insufficient sex education, social stigmas and overall a lack of mental health funding. If you're anxious and using sex as a coping mechanism to shore up your low-self esteem; the problem isn't the sex, it's the anxiety and low-self esteem. The problem isn't intrinsically about the act of finding people to have casual sex with. I definitely think not everyone can do that, some people struggle to separate the romantic from the sexual and that is totally okay as well.
I suppose ultimately my existentialist leanings makes me reticent to pass judgement on other people's life purposes. What I think makes my life meaningful or worth living isn't going to work for everyone, and I don't think there exists an objective, mind-independent answer to that question. If you don't think your life has meaning whatsoever and would rather not have one, that's a totally acceptable position. My partner and I can see the appeal in being a parent, but my younger sister can't stand kids and the idea of being pregnant makes her nauseous, but I don't think for a second my sister is going to have a "less meaningful" life. She can just derive meaning from something else.
@@EspadaKing777 I am sure you accept teleology in general, you just don't like it in certain cases. Or do you reject the entire concept of a medical disease/disorder? You think there is no difference between a diabetic person and non-diabetic since the pancreas has no purpose, it just sort of exists at random, sometimes makes insulin, sometimes not, but both options are equally valid for a pancreas?
If we don't agree on God then these other conversations don't really make sense. The real reason these things are taught by the Church is because they are necessary logical conclusions derived from other foundation truths. Its not like some Pope just prayed about it and decided certain things have a moral purpose and made up some rules. If sexual ethics does not exist then the natural law does not exist which means objective morality does not exist which means God does not exist which means you do not exist. So it looks we only agree on the first premise that we exist, so it would be more productive to first agree that the only possible logical explanation for our existence is the existence of a fully actualized being called God.
Object cannot have 'inherit' properties, they do not have a 'nature'. They were not designed to tend in a certain way, they are completely dependent on the operator or user. They can still have a purpose, but that purpose was not designed by God and therefore is not something for the realm of morality. The purpose is neither good or evil in itself. The purpose was assigned by the imperfect creator. Going against the designed purpose of a hammer does not violate the design and will of God, so depending on the intent and circumstances of what you are doing it could ingenious, dumb, evil, neutral, silly etc.
and right from the start here we go with naaaaazi again...dont you get bored by now?
That’s great, so proud of you 🙄
Are you saying that sex that is not intercourse, is wrong? Such as a husband and wife engaging in mutual masterbation?
Interesting question. I think Ed Feser touched upon this.
Jokes on you, i was born in Japan i think about fictional characters lmao. Have done since i was 8, god bless this beautiful nation
if you think you should have sex after a pregnancy then i suggest you read st hildegard's scivias. lots of good stuff in there.
A thoughtful take on the subject, but the dig at Protestantism was completely unnecessary and also untrue.
24:14
St. Joseph terror of demons pray for us...
...
The truth is Personal. Existence is Personal. Christ IS Sanity.
Personal as in intimate, not personal as is relative.
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
[3] To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
[4] An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.
You are deceived unfortunately.
It’s spelled ‘insanity’. You’re welcome.
Eating chocolate pleasures your tastebuds...eating too much chocolate hurts your health obesity and can make you sick. You use your hammer to hit nails...using it to harm others is bad. Sex is for making babies and pleasure to unite man and wife...sex outside marriage causes psychological and emotional harm because there is no committment or protection outside the convenant of marriage. Sex for pleasure is usury...treating people as objects lustful outside of love. If you love each other you will wait until marriage and be able to provide a potential child a father and a mother committed to each other.
"BABY BUST".
I bet that last girl can't prove she a girl. She refuse to define.
Lord have mercy.
The answer is clear if you understand evolution. Nothing in evolution has a "teleology" as all the "ideas" of evolution were generated randomly. It's like accidentally tripping on a tree root and discovering some hidden treasure there.
Was the "purpose" of tripping to find the treasure? Of course not. It was a happy accident. Every evolutionary features is the same as this, so literally no biological feature can be said to have a purpose more than ANY happy accident can be. And by "happy" it literally only means "that which increases the likelihood of gene transmission."
Animals with brains have purpose, and it means something very specific in that context, but organisms themselves and biological features don't.
I wish Trent would call out the church on how weak teleological thinking is, as it's clear he knows. But alas, I know he cannot as it's his job to try and cast it in the best light possible.
It just so happens certain mammals like human derive pleasure from sex. Sex is for whatever you want it to be, including reproduction
"Sex is for whatever you want it to be, including reproduction"
Um, no. The end goal of sex is reproduction. Pleasure is nature's way of saying "have sex, lots of it, puh-lease." You can sterilize yourself and use contraception in order to avoid the end goal, though, in order to misuse sex to achieve "whatever you want it to be."
You don't know why WII was fought, do you? It was about inperial politics where America wanted to maintain more control over Europe rather than a speedy end to the war which could have included relocating European Jewry. Talk of the holocaust was famously sparse until the 60s, and troops and even most of the officers were not motivated by modern liberal racial ideology. It's kind of analogous to saying Vietnam was about fighting communism. If it really were that simple, the US would have assisted France more substantially and earlier rather than betray them and South Vietnamese allies
kinda dumb question. equivalent to Whats walking for? transportation? can it be done as excercise? Pleasure? barefoot? shoed? alone? in a group? pretty silly
Infidelity is becoming normalised in open marriages and polyamorous relationships, due to the priority of pleasure over the family
If sex was only for procreation sex would always result in pregnancy but women are only fertile for a couple days a month so obviously it’s for pleasure too otherwise women would always be fertile. For me sex is a tool adult’s (only ADULT’S) use to show ultimate affection or a way to show desire.
Well Trent, if you won’t call them Nazis………..*Joe Biden speech intensifies*
Disordered (contrary to their purpose) acts do not necessarily entail moral wrongness. Is it morally wrong to use a screwdriver as a hammer? There's more to the wrong-making-ness of an action than solely it's purpose. With sex, consent is a strong, perhaps the strongest, intuition regarding wrong-making-ness. At the very least, it does not follow that disordered consensual sex is necessarily wrong.
That is what was said, necessary but not sufficient. Consent alone does not determine wrongness.
The metaphysics of men and women determine the wrongness. To use my body against its telos, as determined by God is wrong.
@@DensityMatrix1 I think you misunderstood me, I agree consent is not sufficient, but neither is purpose, or telos. You must do more to show the wrongness of an action than whether it is contrary or not to it's purpose, as my screwdriver analogy shows. Disordered sex is not necessarily wrong.
@@anthonymount1275 If it is disordered it is by definition wrong? Not sure I understand what you mean. Two gay people may engage in disordered activity with the best of intentions but it is still wrong. God is order. Anything other than that is not of God.
@@anthonymount1275 A tool is created and designed by a man, to be used in the furtherance of a man’s goals. Men choose to use their tools how they see fit.
Men and women are designed and created by God for the furtherance of Gods goal. Disordered use of your body is your choice, but against Gods will, therefore wrong.
Tools have no free will, you do.
@@theresefrancis9283 if disordered means: "any wrongmaking properties" then you're making a tautology. To say disordered sex is wrong because it has a wrong-making property is a tautology, or at least begging the question. I would have no quibble with you, but it doesn't really say anything about the matter.
Fornication and disordered sex is what binge eating and bulimia are to eating
Agreed.
Sorry for being a creep and a simp, but you look really handsome. Are u Italian? I hope you'll notice my reply 😂.
I think we need to ask why sex is pleasurable. The biological reason is to encourage us to reproduce.
That is the function of pleasure in neuroscience. It is a stimulus that motivated a person to continue to perform a task.
In the case of sex, pleasure is a stimulus that continues to perform the primary purpose of sex.
The shallowness of sexual ethics of the modern world is literally shown in their premises.
(1) Legal age
(2) Consent
If the legal age was 15, what percent of 29 year old men would have sex with a 15 yr old girl? This is where law has its limits on ethics and morality. In fact, it says nothing about such concepts. Just because something is legal to do doesn't mean one should do it. It rarely factors in the maturity and knowledge of the younger party even if consent is given. Change that 15 yr old to a newly minted 18 yr old, how many 33 yr olds would take the opportunity to have sex? Legal but best not to partake even if the 18 yr old is the one who makes the move.
Interesting. My only question is, what qualifies as marital love? And what counts as marriage, exactly? I think marriage in a typical sense where it’s about getting a ring and doing this whole get together thing, kissing in front of a marriage guide of some sort, is unnecessary when it comes to sex and love. Which is why if we define marriage in that way, I don’t think sex before marriage is wrong or would be considered disordered (haven’t fully fleshed that out yet so I could be wrong).
Though, this sort of agreed on bonding between two people (I’m not sure on more than two but maybe) is all I would see as sufficient. Like when two people say “we together” or “she’s girlfriend”, that I think would be sufficient to begin sexual acts or behavior, if not already before.
The Church has already defined marriage as a Sacrament where one man and one woman make a vow to remain in a monogamous relationship with one another.
Sex can have lots of purposes. This it satisfies a drive (certainly for men at least). It also serves to create a bond between a couple. We see even couples who marry in the Church - well they often have sex before marriage. That children are begun with sex is a plus. But it does not explain the strong drive. Sex is for sex... so for love ect. This is just nonsense and does not related to human life today. Thus we can allow gay sex too and leave the field of battle happy. Fornication is wrong because it is a betrayal.
For such a brilliant guy, you're really lacking some good foundation for your claims and you've got some bad logic.
Two minutes in and he compared an abortion to gassing Jews.
Sex is for MEANING.
Asking a priest for help on sex is like asking a president for help on battle. They have lots of opinions but no real experience.
the error that is made is that of assuming objective meaning
it's like asking what is a hammer for
the answer is It depends on the mind that is using it,
meaning is subjective
Morality is objective
asking why someone is having sex is a better question
and the answer depend on the subject
A Hammer is for hammering, that's why it's called a hammer.
But setting that aside because a hammer is a manmade object, not something necessary for the continuation of the human race. Sex, *is* an objective act, if it's not objective why do we have laws around it? Why is it when I'm taking out my garbage that's not sex, if sex were subjective, than why can't we call me taking out my garbage sex?; we know that sex is an objective thing, it involves organ that are clearly pointed towards reproduction, it's an objective thing with an objective purpose.
@@marklizama5560 you are straw manning my position then assuming your conclusion to try and prove it
I don't agree a hammer can be used to pry nail so a hammer is for prying or if I feel threatened by someone I can hold up a hammer for threatening
from your subject point of view all a hammer is for hammering
but from someone else point there is alternative uses
I never said Sex or a hammer is subjective
the object or action is real
what it is FOR depends on the subject
you said
"(sex is) something necessary for the continuation of the human race."
but why value the continuation of the human race ?
objects don't value things
subjects do
@@darcevader4146 A hammer can only pry nails if it has a *pryer,* because the purpose of the pryer is to pry-out nails. If you use a hammer to scare-off an aggressor, you're scaring said aggressor off by threatening to *hammer* the aggressor, you could argue that said action is clubbing or bludgeoning, but that's only because those actions are similar to hammering, hence why you could use a club to *hammer* in a nail, but you cannot use scissors; nor can you threaten to slash or stab an aggressor with a hammer.
No what a thing is for is not subjective, it's objective as I have just proven above and frankly you have proven by saying there is no value in the continuation of the human race. It's not that objective things do not have value, it's that people cannot or will accept the value of objective things.
@@marklizama5560 I think your confusing objective properties that help you succeed in your subjective goal
one can totally threaten to stab someone with a hammer the problem is since a hammer is not sharp it won't fulfill **>>your
@@marklizama5560 "you have proven by saying there is no value in the continuation of the human race"
Stop lying about my position
I never once said there is no value
there is value and it is grounded in the subject not the object
Sssssseeeeexxx!!!!
I think asking a priest about sex is like asking a lifelong vegan about steak!
You’re free to your opinion of course, but have you considered a vegan who used to eat meat and doesn’t anymore? That vegan would know that the value of what they are gaining is higher than that of what they are giving up, I assume (I’m not a vegan). Many priests before they discerned their vocations and made their vows of being celibate led normal lives. I’ve met priests who used to be married but their spouse died, or they’ve had relationships before (not to imply those relationships were sexually active in a premarital way). They know exactly what they are choosing to give up, and it is for a greater purpose, though not like a vegan would choose to give up meat. When a vegan gives up meat, they are abstaining from a perceived evil for a noble purpose. When a priest abstains from a sexual lifestyle, he is abstaining from one good for another good, again for a noble purpose. Priests are called upon to meditate and reflect on the meaning of life, creation, and sex far more than the average person who just pursues a life involving sex as a matter of course. So let’s not make the mistake that these priests are absolute know-nothings when it comes to sexual ethics and living a fulfilled, abundant life without it. I wish you God’s peace, my friend. 😊
1Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
There's nothing wrong with asking a vegan about steak, because even a vegan has certain knowledge and perception about steak that makes them decide to not eat it.
All I know is that I'm going to hell. So with that in mind I don't need to worry about pleasing a God that already hates me hehehehe
If you accept Jesus, you don't have to go to hell. God doesn't hate you, He sent His Son to pay for all your sins so that you could be in a healthy relationship with Him.
Repent and you can live :)
Sex is for procreation (offspring/children) but these days it's only for pleasure and this isn't good for society as abortion could be minimal/none if people got married and planned to have kids (only then have sex).
you mean if I only want to have 2 children, I only need sex may be twice in lifetime? If you count masturbation as sexual activity I only need none. LOL.
May be it's intentional or may be even unintentional that human species sexual habit are maniacal compared to other species, perhaps human sexual activity is a factor that strengthen bonds and cooperation between male and female in raising children at first. Human children development are slow compared to another species. 20 years old still considered a child. to constantly break the boredom between couple in such a long period, male and female need sex as pleasure to prevent us tearing each other's face apart. sexual activity is pleasure, period.
but biology is tricky, the sexual pleasure that initially strengthen bonds between parents even trick a infertile couple in such way that they think their sexual relationship has any biological purpose at all. they have no kids to raise. with that realisation that sexual activity can mean only about pleasure, not necessarily limited to procreation, why not use sex as a tool to make bond between you and someone you want to spend the rest of your life with. even same sex included.
@@cikicikibumbum259 Animals don't use sex for pleasure only dolphins and humans because it's meant for reproduction that's in our nature. Using it for pleasure is not biology and just something humans want to do and sex is so the human race doesn't die out. People just shouldn't forget that it's main purpose is to reproduce if they still want it for pleasure.
Ah yes, the very recent and new invention of recreational sex lmao
🦋HOW TO BE SAVED:
There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God.
Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person.
The Bible says that we are all sinners.
As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6
For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell).
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8
In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14
For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves.
It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21
If you would like to receive Jesus as your Savior. Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and tell Jesus that you trust in Him and only Him to save you from hell.
Your trust in Jesus and His shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins, is what saves you from hell.
The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.
Then, you should be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
‘Saved’ from what?
If the babies don't exist yet you are not acting against them. Get better arguments for being anti contraception. They are old and are bad. Sex is for reproduction but just like there is more to the mortality than consent, sex is not only used for reproduction, and humans in all cultures know this and have used this as an example. People have sex for pleasure, for love and growing relationships. Your narrow view cannot be used for all humans.
"Your narrow view cannot be used for all humans."
Yes it can because it sees what sex IS primarily for.
" the babies don't exist yet you are not acting against them."
If you prevent the babies from existing via contraception or kill them via abortion, you are acting against them.
"humans in all cultures know this and have used this as an example."
So what. If 50% of all humans jump off a cliff would you do it too?
" People have sex for pleasure, for love and growing relationships. "
Yes, I don't think Trent or any Catholic is denying this. You basically are saying the Catholic view is the proper view of sex.
Thanks for playing.
Sex is not only for reproduction. However, reproduction is the PRIMARY purpose of sex. That is why sex organs are called REPRODUCTIVE organs and not pleasure organs.
Sex organs don't care how people use sex. They will always perform their biological (primary) function. Therefore, a person is saying with their actions they want to create a new life when they perform sex based on the biological (primary) function.
Can do and should do are two different things